Amelia vs. Dozla

[Tino]

And then how can you come to the conclusion which of the two is better? Guessing?

[Defeatist Elitist]

My whole point is that when comparing characters, compare people who fulfill similar roles. I don't compare Saleh to Seth. They don't fulfill the same combat role.

While that is true to a degree, I certainly wouldn't expect a Thief or Healer to be doing a lot of killing, or even a Magic User doing much combat with enemies that can counter attack physically, it doesn't make much of a difference. First of all, regular old physical units have one main job. Killing things without being killed. They may have side jobs (rescuing, flanking, walling, etc), but their main job is killing things. Same with most combat oriented Magic Users. Now, a Healers job is essentially to help your other units kill things. A Thief's job is basically to open doors and get items so that your units can kill things.

Horrible simplification yes, but I think it gets the point across. Some units have certain roles, but that doesn't mean that they are always "good" because of their role. Amelia beating Dozla at both his and her own role is a case in point.

Unless the role is like "Primary axe wielding man with beard, lackluster supports, a critical bonus, and mediocre stats". Then Dozla might be best at it. :P

[sandmanccl]

And then how can you come to the conclusion which of the two is better? Guessing?

I've never said that there is definitively one person that is better than the other. The fact is there simply isn't. There are so many factors and so many people out there that value one thing over another that there cannot be clearly, without a doubt, the better unit out of Amelia and Dozla. It's just not going to happen.

Amelia is a bitch to raise up. The game isn't overly difficult so many might argue, and correctly so from their point of view, that she's a useless unit.

Dozla ends kind of lackluster, but despite how you feel about his support options, he's got support options if you choose to make them, and they still benefit everyone involved. He's also usable from the moment he joins your party and while other people might outclass him, he's good enough to take into the end of the game and still not be a liability.

Some people think the ends justify the means and say Amelia is 100% better. Some people think hassles are hassles and if you don't have to do them in order to succeed, why bother?

Remember, I plumb don't care about the "debate standards" because it's a load of crap. Any time you willfully ignore any incoming information that might influence a decision, you are the one limiting yourself. You guys have said that Dozla can potentially be a viable unit in your party with the right strategies. I always argue on the side of variety (well, I try to because I know there's been exceptions) and try to defend units other people pass up as "worthless" despite the fact they can add great value.

[Defeatist Elitist]

I've never said that there is definitively one person that is better than the other. The fact is there simply isn't. There are so many factors and so many people out there that value one thing over another that there cannot be clearly, without a doubt, the better unit out of Amelia and Dozla. It's just not going to happen.

Amelia is a bitch to raise up. The game isn't overly difficult so many might argue, and correctly so from their point of view, that she's a useless unit.

Dozla ends kind of lackluster, but despite how you feel about his support options, he's got support options if you choose to make them, and they still benefit everyone involved. He's also usable from the moment he joins your party and while other people might outclass him, he's good enough to take into the end of the game and still not be a liability.

Some people think the ends justify the means and say Amelia is 100% better. Some people think hassles are hassles and if you don't have to do them in order to succeed, why bother?

Remember, I plumb don't care about the "debate standards" because it's a load of crap. Any time you willfully ignore any incoming information that might influence a decision, you are the one limiting yourself. You guys have said that Dozla can potentially be a viable unit in your party with the right strategies. I always argue on the side of variety (well, I try to because I know there's been exceptions) and try to defend units other people pass up as "worthless" despite the fact they can add great value.

But did you see what I said? Debating never has and hopefully never will be a method to tell people which units they have to use. It has always been simply to show which units are better OVERALL. Which means that taking into account everyone's possible playstyles, certain characters ARE better than others. For example, Seth is better than Knoll. Sure, people can use strategy to make Knoll effective, but using the same amount of thought with Seth will still yield better results. Characters can get RNG Blessed/screwed, but OVERALL Seth will end up better, in addition to starting incredible and with a massive level lead. He also has massive supports. See what I'm getting at?

You can use strategy all you want, it doesn't change the fact that in general, Seth is better than Knoll.

[sandmanccl]

But did you see what I said? Debating never has and hopefully never will be a method to tell people which units they have to use. It has always been simply to show which units are better OVERALL.

Except that the rules outlined don't actually do that. I've given long explainations as to exactly why, but any time you willfully ignore someone given a legitimate point because it doesn't fit in with YOUR ideals of what is superior, then it is not in fact a debate because that would mean equivalent exchange of ideas.

Example is the Guy v. Raven thing. You probably won't be using all 3 of them because they have overlapping combat effectiveness. Guy has the potential to be good in a few maps from when he joins with use of supports, but Raven outclasses him End-game because he's got strength up the wazoo, better defense, and the ability to use multiple weapon types. Weighing these facts might mean someone chooses Guy over Raven because they want the unit who's better earlier, but some people might say they like a guy who's more powerful end-game and won't even bother with Guy because Guy will steal supports from someone you plan to use longer.

The "debate standards" tell me that Guy is the one I should be using despite the fact that I think Guy is a terrible unit for a lot of reasons. People debate to find who a better unit is, sure, but the "debate standards" don't actually accomplish that because they willfully ignore a lot of huge factors.

If anything, debate strategies. It IS a strategy game after all. You don't see people on Starcraft forums debating if Ultralisks are better than Hydralisks because they have better stats. They're debating how to use every one of their units and options in order to be successful. I don't get why Fire Emblem fans ignore this idea.

Which means that taking into account everyone's possible playstyles, certain characters ARE better than others. For example, Seth is better than Knoll. Sure, people can use strategy to make Knoll effective, but using the same amount of thought with Seth will still yield better results. Characters can get RNG Blessed/screwed, but OVERALL Seth will end up better, in addition to starting incredible and with a massive level lead. He also has massive supports. See what I'm getting at?

You can use strategy all you want, it doesn't change the fact that in general, Seth is better than Knoll.

Why are you comparing Seth to Knoll? Compare Seth to Duessel, maybe. Compare Knoll to Ewan, maybe. They don't have combat roles that overlap and you're probably not going to run into a situation where you're going to dump Seth for Knoll or vice-versa.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Except that the rules outlined don't actually do that. I've given long explainations as to exactly why, but any time you willfully ignore someone given a legitimate point because it doesn't fit in with YOUR ideals of what is superior, then it is not in fact a debate because that would mean equivalent exchange of ideas.

Example is the Guy v. Raven thing. You probably won't be using all 3 of them because they have overlapping combat effectiveness. Guy has the potential to be good in a few maps from when he joins with use of supports, but Raven outclasses him End-game because he's got strength up the wazoo, better defense, and the ability to use multiple weapon types. Weighing these facts might mean someone chooses Guy over Raven because they want the unit who's better earlier, but some people might say they like a guy who's more powerful end-game and won't even bother with Guy because Guy will steal supports from someone you plan to use longer.

The "debate standards" tell me that Guy is the one I should be using despite the fact that I think Guy is a terrible unit for a lot of reasons. People debate to find who a better unit is, sure, but the "debate standards" don't actually accomplish that because they willfully ignore a lot of huge factors.

If anything, debate strategies. It IS a strategy game after all. You don't see people on Starcraft forums debating if Ultralisks are better than Hydralisks because they have better stats. They're debating how to use every one of their units and options in order to be successful. I don't get why Fire Emblem fans ignore this idea.

Why are you comparing Seth to Knoll? Compare Seth to Duessel, maybe. Compare Knoll to Ewan, maybe. They don't have combat roles that overlap and you're probably not going to run into a situation where you're going to dump Seth for Knoll or vice-versa.

What "huge factors" do the debate standards ignore exactly? The only ones I can think of are personal preference, personal experience and bias. Anything else is probably just a point the other person was trying to make. If I say "I think Guy is better because he's better early game" then it's not because the debate standards say that, it's because I'm trying to make a point. The debate standards are NOT willfully ignorant of anything really.

A debate, to me, is two people attempting to convince each other, or an audience of their point. I'm assuming you think the same thing, right? Then, correct me if I'm wrong, if you say something in defense of your point (say for example, that this unit is good with strategy), and I attack it (say, by saying "Yeah, but everyone's strategy is different, and besides, that still doesn't change the fact that my unit is statistically superior", how is that NOT a debate?

As to strategy. I've never once said that you shouldn't debate strategy. I've never said anything about it. Hell, I think it's a good idea. Personally, I, and a lot of other people enjoy debating CHARACTERS, because Fire Emblem is a Strategy RPG, and the character's are a fairly big part of it. They have statistical differences. Some units, like it or not, are better statistically than others.

Also, StarCraft is BALANCED. There where times when some units WHERE better than others, and people barely used the worse units. But Blizzard has this thing called Patching, and a Multiplayer Community creating the NEED for balance.

Fire Emblem has none of that.

And why Seth to Knoll? Well, why not? Just because they fulfill a different role (ie. They kill things a different way :P), doesn't mean one can't be better than the other.

[sandmanccl]

What "huge factors" do the debate standards ignore exactly? The only ones I can think of are personal preference, personal experience and bias. Anything else is probably just a point the other person was trying to make. If I say "I think Guy is better because he's better early game" then it's not because the debate standards say that, it's because I'm trying to make a point. The debate standards are NOT willfully ignorant of anything really.

You mean the GIANT assumptions I hear every freakin' time about who I'm going to be using at any given point and who they will be supporting?

That's ignoring reality. Some people think that Guy is a worthless unit because of his pathetic strength score (like myself) and that Raven is a better choice, but how dare I say Raven is better off supporting Priscilla than Guy is because earlier supports are ALWAYS better than supports that happen later! Obviously! What could I have been thinking when I said Raven is a better support for Priscilla than Guy? I forgot the debate standards, my mistake.

A debate, to me, is two people attempting to convince each other, or an audience of their point. I'm assuming you think the same thing, right? Then, correct me if I'm wrong, if you say something in defense of your point (say for example, that this unit is good with strategy), and I attack it (say, by saying "Yeah, but everyone's strategy is different, and besides, that still doesn't change the fact that my unit is statistically superior", how is that NOT a debate?

That's never happened. =\ I've never, ever, ever heard the other side say "Granted he can be useful but I think so and so is better because they are statistically superior." Ever. Do you understand why I get so irate with you guys? I've never heard the opposition concede a good point. It makes me feel like we're debating in Congress with a bunch of retards from the opposing party that will disagree with whatever I say because I said it and I'm clearly never in the right.

As to strategy. I've never once said that you shouldn't debate strategy. I've never said anything about it. Hell, I think it's a good idea. Personally, I, and a lot of other people enjoy debating CHARACTERS, because Fire Emblem is a Strategy RPG, and the character's are a fairly big part of it. They have statistical differences. Some units, like it or not, are better statistically than others.

Also, StarCraft is BALANCED. There where times when some units WHERE better than others, and people barely used the worse units. But Blizzard has this thing called Patching, and a Multiplayer Community creating the NEED for balance.

Fire Emblem has none of that.

The Fire Emblem games are all sorts of balanced. The game devs put a LOT of effort into keeping it that way. There is never a situation when a character can't be salvaged and made into someone great and useful. You can argue who out of Forde or Kyle is the better unit until you're blue in the face but the fact is stats hardly matter.

My point is that it's pretty easy to say "USE THIS GUY HE'S AWESOME" when it'd be much more productive to go map by map and explain key points to hold, key points to attack, which types of units to bring in order to struggle as little as possible. I haven't seen that happen yet.

And why Seth to Knoll? Well, why not? Just because they fulfill a different role (ie. They kill things a different way :P), doesn't mean one can't be better than the other.

Even if Knoll had 50% stat growths in every area, would you ever seriously debate bringing him over Seth or vice versa? My guess is probably not. You're first going to think "Should I bring Seth or Franz into this next map?" or "Should I bring Saleh or Knoll into this next map?" before you debate who to bring out of Seth or Knoll.

Debate all you want, just make the debates fruitful, ones that will increase the understanding of people rather than arguments about numbers that fluctuate quite severely any given playthrough.

[Mekkah]

Example is the Guy v. Raven thing. You probably won't be using all 3 of them because they have overlapping combat effectiveness. Guy has the potential to be good in a few maps from when he joins with use of supports, but Raven outclasses him End-game because he's got strength up the wazoo, better defense, and the ability to use multiple weapon types. Weighing these facts might mean someone chooses Guy over Raven because they want the unit who's better earlier, but some people might say they like a guy who's more powerful end-game and won't even bother with Guy because Guy will steal supports from someone you plan to use longer.

The "debate standards" tell me that Guy is the one I should be using despite the fact that I think Guy is a terrible unit for a lot of reasons. People debate to find who a better unit is, sure, but the "debate standards" don't actually accomplish that because they willfully ignore a lot of huge factors.

Guy and Raven both do combat. Whichever one is better at combat is the better unit to bring. If they're both really good, bring both along. Should I use a worse unit like Lucius instead, who uses Light magic and not swords?

If a debater ignores a valid point, then your second paragraph proves true. Otherwise, debates don't ignore factors that matter - not in the opinion of the majority of debaters, anyway.

Hmm....topic title is familiar!

[sandmanccl]

Guy and Raven both do combat. Whichever one is better at combat is the better unit to bring. If they're both really good, bring both along. Should I use a worse unit like Lucius instead, who uses Light magic and not swords?

Yes. He attacks from range and does an awful lot of damage in the process due to his high magic stat and speed. He also eventually wields staves in order to heal wounds.

I'm all about simplifying things to their most basic point in most situations, but it doesn't really hold in most strategy games, especially Fire Emblem. Keeping your units alive is incredibly important because dead ones are gone forever, so fighting effectively is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the statistically superior unit.

[Tino]

Yes. He attacks from range and does an awful lot of damage in the process due to his high magic stat and speed. He also eventually wields staves in order to heal wounds.

I'm all about simplifying things to their most basic point in most situations, but it doesn't really hold in most strategy games, especially Fire Emblem. Keeping your units alive is incredibly important because dead ones are gone forever, so fighting effectively is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the statistically superior unit.

Lucius has lollable durability <_<

You contradicted yourself very well here.

[Mekkah]

...statistically superior units ARE fighting more effectively than statistically inferior units. I honestly cannot see your point.

[sandmanccl]

Maybe if we're comparing Seth to Franz or something like that. But we're comparing Amelia to Dozla in this thread. Honestly, their combat roles won't overlap very often. You'd have to do some serious babying to get Amelia up to the same strength Dozla has by the time he joins so technically, he's superior than her in that stat. He's also going to have superior HP so he can take bigger hits.

Just telling me that I've contradicted myself without pointing out how makes you sound pretty childish.

Tino: Who gives a shit if his HP and defense are poor? If he's being attacked in melee, you did it wrong. I've made this argument a dozen times over and you have yet to acknowledge the fact it's a terrible idea to leave your mage units in range of even a single melee unit except under certain extreme conditions. Outside of fog of war maps, you ALWAYS know how far enemies can move, so you can figure out where you should leave your units that are less durable in order to be effective on offense when your turn comes around again.

I'm calling pre-emptive bullshit on the "but you can't always avoid it" because I've always managed to avoid it. Ever heard of rescuing? It's one reason I love Generals. I have them run up to rescue a guy if shit hits the fan and I can't get them out of a bad situation with, say, a cavalier or pegasus. Sure, they'll probably get doubled but unless the enemy is rolling around with armorslayers and hammers, you can still expect minimal damage on your unit.

[Swordsalmon]

Tino: Who gives a shit if his HP and defense are poor? If he's being attacked in melee, you did it wrong. I've made this argument a dozen times over and you have yet to acknowledge the fact it's a terrible idea to leave your mage units in range of even a single melee unit except under certain extreme conditions. Outside of fog of war maps, you ALWAYS know how far enemies can move, so you can figure out where you should leave your units that are less durable in order to be effective on offense when your turn comes around again.

You can't always guard characters at all times. Durability is, as such, very important for every class.

[sandmanccl]

You're not a very good strategist if you think that.

[Defeatist Elitist]

You mean the GIANT assumptions I hear every freakin' time about who I'm going to be using at any given point and who they will be supporting?

That's ignoring reality. Some people think that Guy is a worthless unit because of his pathetic strength score (like myself) and that Raven is a better choice, but how dare I say Raven is better off supporting Priscilla than Guy is because earlier supports are ALWAYS better than supports that happen later! Obviously! What could I have been thinking when I said Raven is a better support for Priscilla than Guy? I forgot the debate standards, my mistake.

That's never happened. =\ I've never, ever, ever heard the other side say "Granted he can be useful but I think so and so is better because they are statistically superior." Ever. Do you understand why I get so irate with you guys? I've never heard the opposition concede a good point. It makes me feel like we're debating in Congress with a bunch of retards from the opposing party that will disagree with whatever I say because I said it and I'm clearly never in the right.

The Fire Emblem games are all sorts of balanced. The game devs put a LOT of effort into keeping it that way. There is never a situation when a character can't be salvaged and made into someone great and useful. You can argue who out of Forde or Kyle is the better unit until you're blue in the face but the fact is stats hardly matter.

My point is that it's pretty easy to say "USE THIS GUY HE'S AWESOME" when it'd be much more productive to go map by map and explain key points to hold, key points to attack, which types of units to bring in order to struggle as little as possible. I haven't seen that happen yet.

Even if Knoll had 50% stat growths in every area, would you ever seriously debate bringing him over Seth or vice versa? My guess is probably not. You're first going to think "Should I bring Seth or Franz into this next map?" or "Should I bring Saleh or Knoll into this next map?" before you debate who to bring out of Seth or Knoll.

Debate all you want, just make the debates fruitful, ones that will increase the understanding of people rather than arguments about numbers that fluctuate quite severely any given playthrough.

I just felt a blood vessel in my eye pop. :(

Did you not see where I said that units being assumed is not a part of the debate standards? They're assumed BECAUSE THE PERSON ARGUING IS TRYING TO MAKE THEM ASSUMED. If you don't like a certain unit or support being assumed, prove why your option is better. Maybe I didn't clarify enough... You can say Raven is a better support for Priscilla than Guy, and you can try to prove it.

Now, I've said this before. You might prove it. Hell, you might prove it better than the other person. But they won't automatically accept it. After a debate, people might look back and go "Yeah, I think you won there.", or "That was a really good point." Did you see Tino debate against Swordsalmon? They even said afterwards things like "I think you won that one". Problem with a lot of the debates here is that someone sees Tino or SS or me say "No, those Supports suck", or "That unit won't be used" and think "WHOMG They're saying that I can't ever use that unit and it's a rule of the debate", as opposed to "That's just another point they're trying to make. An argument against me."

[sandmanccl]

But it's not provable. It's a matter of opinion. I think that the support bonuses granted from Raven / Priscilla are more important and useful than the support bonuses granted by Priscilla / Guy, especially considering Guy's strength growth is made out of pure failure.

When you can't PROVE something, it's just another opinion, and saying it's provable is a laughable concept that makes you look like a tool, a sheep unable to deviate from a path you've been told is superior.

[Defeatist Elitist]

But it's not provable. It's a matter of opinion. I think that the support bonuses granted from Raven / Priscilla are more important and useful than the support bonuses granted by Priscilla / Guy, especially considering Guy's strength growth is made out of pure failure.

When you can't PROVE something, it's just another opinion, and saying it's provable is a laughable concept that makes you look like a tool, a sheep unable to deviate from a path you've been told is superior.

Wait, what? That's a dangerous argument. Something is "proven" when the evidence in it's favor outweighs any evidence against it, by a larger margin than any alternate arguments. I don't see what your saying here. We "prove" something by using logic and reason.

EDIT: Hold on, I just read that again. Trying to PROVE something makes you a tool and a sheep unable to deviate from a path you've been told is superior? Sorry, I would say that if anyone falls in that category it's the people who never try to prove things.

Edited October 30, 2008 by ZXValaRevan

[Tino]

But it's not provable. It's a matter of opinion. I think that the support bonuses granted from Raven / Priscilla are more important and useful than the support bonuses granted by Priscilla / Guy, especially considering Guy's strength growth is made out of pure failure.

When you can't PROVE something, it's just another opinion, and saying it's provable is a laughable concept that makes you look like a tool, a sheep unable to deviate from a path you've been told is superior.

If Priscilla supports Guy, Guy goes from mediocre offense to arguably the best offense in the game. If Priscilla supports Raven, he gains 1 Atk and 1 Def. Both of those bonuses don't make him a lot better, if any better at all.

Priscilla x Guy improves your team quite a lot more than Priscilla x Raven, making the former the superior support.

[Florete]

If Priscilla supports Guy, Guy goes from mediocre offense to arguably the best offense in the game. If Priscilla supports Raven, he gains 1 Atk and 1 Def. Both of those bonuses don't make him a lot better, if any better at all.

Priscilla x Guy improves your team quite a lot more than Priscilla x Raven, making the former the superior support.

The bonuses for PriscillaxGuy are easily better than they are for PriscillaxRaven. However, PriscillaxGuy is a good deal slower than PriscillaxRaven. Guy is much better off with Matthew A/Priscilla B, leaving Priscilla open for Raven (or Erk, but meh, he's not part of this).

Edit: Who cares, it's off-topic...

Edited October 30, 2008 by Red Fox of Fire

[Tino]

The bonuses easily outweighs the 40~50 additional turns Priscilla x Guy requires.

Priscilla x Raven doesn't improve your team, Priscilla x Guy improves your team a lot.

But indeed, this is off-topic.

---------------

Revan is absolutely right here.

[Florete]

The bonuses easily outweighs the 40~50 additional turns Priscilla x Guy requires.

Priscilla x Raven doesn't improve your team, Priscilla x Guy improves your team a lot.

But indeed, this is off-topic.

---------------

Revan is absolutely right here.

GuyxMatthew gets the same bonuses as GuyxPriscilla, but is faster...Thus, GuyxMatthew is better for Guy, with B Priscilla. Thus, Priscilla is open for an A support, like Raven or Erk. This is, of course, if you plan on getting the best out of Guy.

I'm not bothering with your argument about debates, but only because both sides have said things I don't agree with.

[Mekkah]

Tino: Who gives a shit if his HP and defense are poor? If he's being attacked in melee, you did it wrong.

So all that matters is offense and mobility or something? Obviously not. More durability means being able to use your offense more. No need to pop Vulneraries or retreat to get healed, and you can expose yourself to more enemies on enemy phase. In addition, it makes you more flexible. Earlygame Lute cannot go anywhere in Ch6 without getting 2HKOed. Garcia can take 3 or even 4 hits without dying.

The better the unit, the less strategy the player has to apply to make up for their flaws. If you assume the player is 100% strategic and always finds perfect formations so that it doesn't matter how much a unit sucks or rules, then all units are equal and we get nowhere.

Even if it worked like that, we can apply the same "it no matter" argument to offense. Who gives a shit if his Atk and AS are poor? If he's attacking an enemy that isn't weakened beforehand, you did it wrong.

But it's not provable. It's a matter of opinion. I think that the support bonuses granted from Raven / Priscilla are more important and useful than the support bonuses granted by Priscilla / Guy, especially considering Guy's strength growth is made out of pure failure.

How good or bad a unit is by themselves only matters if the question is whether they are in play or not. If Guy isn't in play, Priscilla cannot support him. However, if he is, then Priscilla definitely prefers his bonuses. And both Guy and Raven are likely to be in play, since they're both amazing.

Guy's Str _growth_ may be bad, but Str growth is not everything (hello Athos, you are the worst unit in the game tyvm...sorry Lance, you are a worse unit than Ward, etc). Guy doubles where others do not. Guy has a 7-8 Str base at L3. Guy can get up to 5 Atk from supports. Guy can build up crit to the point where it's higher than most people's Hit.

However, PriscillaxGuy is a good deal slower than PriscillaxRaven.

But it also starts a good deal earlier.

[Swordsalmon]

GuyxMatthew gets the same bonuses as GuyxPriscilla, but is faster...Thus, GuyxMatthew is better for Guy, with B Priscilla. Thus, Priscilla is open for an A support, like Raven or Erk. This is, of course, if you plan on getting the best out of Guy.

That's why Guy has Matthew A, Priscilla B. Gives him +5 Attack and +25% Crtical, making his offense possibly the best in the game. Priscilla then gets Erk A, Guy B, for the quick bonuses.

[sandmanccl]

So all that matters is offense and mobility or something? Obviously not. More durability means being able to use your offense more. No need to pop Vulneraries or retreat to get healed, and you can expose yourself to more enemies on enemy phase. In addition, it makes you more flexible. Earlygame Lute cannot go anywhere in Ch6 without getting 2HKOed. Garcia can take 3 or even 4 hits without dying.

All that matters is offense and mobility on magic units, yes. You've got durability in your generals, great knights, warriors, heroes, and most the time at least one Lord unit. They should be at the front of your army, especially considering you can have your magic unit attack from range, and then move your thicker units in front of them to also attack the same enemy in case it didn't die.

Using terrain to your advantage is also key. There's often cases where enemies can't progress past a certain point even though they can still technically move on to the terrain because it slows them down just enough. The game devs made it so you never REALLY require more than one or two genuine tank units that block for your back 6. That's why I've said time and time again that you can ALWAYS prevent the enemy from getting towards your less durable back units.

The argument that mage units and archers need durability is laughable because that would make 90% of them useless. The only truly durable mage unit in the series is Moulder, and he takes a bit of work to get there. If you're saying Lucius is bad because of his poor durability, you're also saying that Erk, Serra, Canas, Pent, Priscilla, Artur, Lute, Natasha, Saleh, Ewan, Knoll, Rhys, Ilyana, Soren, Tormod, Calill, and Bastian are all bad inherently. Granted, there's a case against some of those guys, but if your argument is "THIS GUY HAS TERRIBLE DEFENSE" and look at his or her competition and it's just as bad, then your argument is an exercise in bias. There's a reason the game developers made THE VAST MAJORITY of mage units "glass cannons." They blow shit up but can't take a hit.

The better the unit, the less strategy the player has to apply to make up for their flaws. If you assume the player is 100% strategic and always finds perfect formations so that it doesn't matter how much a unit sucks or rules, then all units are equal and we get nowhere.

So instead of focusing on how to get through the game in case one of your great units gets knocked off somehow so you'll need to dig in your reserves for a unit that's capable enough to get the job done, we're going to focus solely on the characters, which have wild fluctuations in stats from playthrough to playthrough?

Here's a free tip: It largely doesn't matter what characters you bring. It matters what UNITS you bring, but not specific characters. As much as I dislike Guy for having arms made out of butter, it really doesn't matter if you choose him over Lyn or Raven because all 3 serve the same strategic purpose and are largely interchangeable when it comes to combat roles. Each has strengths and weaknesses compared to the other two, but even the slowest of them is still fast and even the weakest of them still does enough damage vs. the enemies your sword guys will likely be attacking to make an impact for your team.

Even if it worked like that, we can apply the same "it no matter" argument to offense. Who gives a shit if his Atk and AS are poor? If he's attacking an enemy that isn't weakened beforehand, you did it wrong.

Pretty much. Now you're catching on.

How good or bad a unit is by themselves only matters if the question is whether they are in play or not. If Guy isn't in play, Priscilla cannot support him. However, if he is, then Priscilla definitely prefers his bonuses. And both Guy and Raven are likely to be in play, since they're both amazing.

Why does she want his bonuses? I have yet to see someone explain that in a way that makes absolute sense. She doesn't benefit from Fire affinity until she promotes, and even then she doesn't really need it because magic units as fast as she are already kill most enemies in one round. The ONLY thing she gets out of it that genuinely benefits her for the majority of the game is the +2.5 avoid per support rank, something she ALSO gets from Raven. She ALSO gets +.5 defense and +2.5 critical avoid per rank with an ice support, which helps her out immediately and continues to help her out for the entire game.

Also, using BOTH Guy and Raven on the same playthrough is next to pointless because Sword units are massive fail for the majority of the game. Doing that means you're pushing Dorcas or Bartre to the side, which is a pretty bad idea as both of them are pretty fantastic units. If you REALLY need two pure sword people, you're better off with Lyn even if you think she's inferior, simply because she has a free promote.

Guy's Str _growth_ may be bad, but Str growth is not everything (hello Athos, you are the worst unit in the game tyvm...sorry Lance, you are a worse unit than Ward, etc). Guy doubles where others do not. Guy has a 7-8 Str base at L3. Guy can get up to 5 Atk from supports. Guy can build up crit to the point where it's higher than most people's Hit.

But it also starts a good deal earlier.

He's also stuck with swords, one of three units in the entire game that are forced to use them at all times, and therefore has difficulty safely hurting a lot of enemies in the game without specialty weapons, even with the avoid from his high speed, luck, and supports. He's going to be your best bet vs. enemy fighters and warriors for sure, but outside of that one single solitary class, he lacks in viability over even your cavaliers. The supports, I might add, still take forever to get off the ground, especially if you beat every map in 20 rounds or less.

Even fast supports take 3 or 4 maps to get up without hurting your tactics rank, so I don't put as much stock in them as you guys do, assuming we're doing ranked runs.

[Mekkah]

You don't really seem to be addressing my point...or you have misunderstood me.

The argument that mage units and archers need durability is laughable because that would make 90% of them useless.

That is not what I said. I said it is better for them to be durable than for them to be not durable. A Mage with 25 HP/10 Def is much better than one with 19 HP/5 Def. They may have equal offense on that uncountered player phase attack, but when enemy phase rolls around, the first dude can get more attacks in, be more exposed to enemies, advance further, retreat less, etc. Archers are just ghey...the fact that they cannot be exposed without being a liability alone makes them bad. Bad durability on top of that sucks even more.

All that matters is offense and mobility on magic units, yes. You've got durability in your generals, great knights, warriors, heroes, and most the time at least one Lord unit. They should be at the front of your army, especially considering you can have your magic unit attack from range, and then move your thicker units in front of them to also attack the same enemy in case it didn't die.

That's ridiculous. Having Oswin, Hector, Dorcas, Geitz and stuff on my team doesn't mean I'll take a glass cannon like Lucius over someone with actual durability like Erk (yes, their durability difference is significant). If I use one with more durability, that one will be able to move out on its own, for example, or do all the things I described in my first paragraph.

Using terrain to your advantage is also key.

But that terrain may not always be there. Or when it is, it could be that you have more than one unit who wants to take advantage of it when in reality you can only cover one unit.

The better the unit, the less strategy the player has to apply to make up for their flaws. If you assume the player is 100% strategic and always finds perfect formations so that it doesn't matter how much a unit sucks or rules, then all units are equal and we get nowhere.

So instead of focusing on how to get through the game in case one of your great units gets knocked off somehow so you'll need to dig in your reserves for a unit that's capable enough to get the job done, we're going to focus solely on the characters, which have wild fluctuations in stats from playthrough to playthrough?

You're not making any sense. I honestly am not understanding your point.

Here's a free tip: It largely doesn't matter what characters you bring. It matters what UNITS you bring, but not specific characters. As much as I dislike Guy for having arms made out of butter, it really doesn't matter if you choose him over Lyn or Raven because all 3 serve the same strategic purpose and are largely interchangeable when it comes to combat roles. Each has strengths and weaknesses compared to the other two, but even the slowest of them is still fast and even the weakest of them still does enough damage vs. the enemies your sword guys will likely be attacking to make an impact for your team.

Yes, they have the same purpose: they fight. Just like Oswin, just like Hector, just like Erk, just like Dorcas, just like Marcus. That is the only purpose they serve (before promotion). They have some parameters along that though. Erk has 1-2 range and hits Res, Oswin chinks everything, Hector has a Prf weapon, etc...all of those can be factored in their combat performance. If the sums of those make Guy and Raven better to bring than someone like Lucius, then I will take a second one of them rather than Lucius. Even taking into account that Lucius hits Res, the other two have the better offense (due to doubling earlier, having more Mt (especially after promo), and being able to be exposed more), and much much better defense (Lucius gets OHKOed or 2HKOed by every single physical enemy you encounter for a long, long time, and never has reliable Avo, whereas both Raven and Guy have reliable Avo and soon walk into 4HKO range...and their CEV doesn't suck).

Units and characters are the same thing pretty much. Maybe not in your view, but they seem to be in everyone else's.

Pretty much. Now you're catching on.

So nothing matters then. Ok. That even contradicts yourself saying All that matters is offense and mobility on magic units, yes.

I'll take a unit with 20 in every stat over one with 10 over every stat, even though I could wall off the latter and always babyspoon him kills.

Why does she want his bonuses? I have yet to see someone explain that in a way that makes absolute sense.

Leaving off irrelevant bonuses like Hit and CEV:

B Guy: 2 Atk/5 Avo/10 Crt

B Raven: 1 Atk/1 Def/5 Avo/5 Crt

Priscilla largely doesn't give a damn about her bonuses prepromotion. She cannot attack, and she sucks at defending no matter what bonuses she gets, and has no reason to be in the line of fire (unlike Mages).

After promotion (when the support has hit B), we see it's 1 Atk/5 Crt vs 1 Def. 1 Atk vs 1 Def looks about equal to me (I'd argue 1 Atk helps her more, but w/e), so the Crit is the kicker. Priscilla wants as much offense as possible so she can score kills with Fire and become able to use Thunder, after all.

Also, using BOTH Guy and Raven on the same playthrough is next to pointless because Sword units are massive fail for the majority of the game. Doing that means you're pushing Dorcas or Bartre to the side, which is a pretty bad idea as both of them are pretty fantastic units. If you REALLY need two pure sword people, you're better off with Lyn even if you think she's inferior, simply because she has a free promote.

Sorry, but...you call using both swordies massive fail, while recommending me to use Lyn, Dorcas and Bartre? First things first: Lyn's promotion isn't free. Heaven Seal costs 20k, and there's only one reasonably early one, which Eliwood might want.

Now, what is this obsession with wanting so many different weapon types or something? Because that's the only reason to ditch some god like Raven over a stub like Bartre. Are you saying your team must always consist of swordie/axer/lancer/bow user/Lucius/Canas/anima/staff user or something? Because that's obviously pretty dumb. You're not playing Pokemon where type matters. The only time it makes a difference between 8 axers and 4 axers/4 swordies is if you're going to get a significant amount of WTD...but you can even get away with WTD since it's only a small percentage of the whole combat window. 15% hit/avo and 1 Atk/Def, while significant, is not the end of the world, especially not if Raven has all around better battle parameters than said axe user.

If you want me to compare the averages of Dorcas and Bartre (who, FYI, hardly ever go higher than Mid tier on tier lists, if that) versus Raven or Guy (who have always been near the Top, or in High), say so. Oh wait, you don't believe in stats, do you? I guess weapon type doesn't matter then either.

For Lyn, suffice it to say that her durability blows cock (she has less physical durability than Lucius, and way less magical durability, and unlike Lucius, she has no ranged attack until promotion...that's how much she fails). Using her over a good unit is nuh-uh.

He's also stuck with swords, one of three units in the entire game that are forced to use them at all times, and therefore has difficulty safely hurting a lot of enemies in the game without specialty weapons, even with the avoid from his high speed, luck, and supports. He's going to be your best bet vs. enemy fighters and warriors for sure, but outside of that one single solitary class, he lacks in viability over even your cavaliers. The supports, I might add, still take forever to get off the ground, especially if you beat every map in 20 rounds or less.

Sorry, but Guy's offense is better than the majority of your characters against the majority of enemies. The only time others have any kind of contest against him is against a lance user when the other dude has no WTD, but even then he usually wins a comparison.